Democrats had an election stolen, women had that election stolen from them

[bigtree]

...women had a chance in 2016 to finally have someone of their gender (and politics) running the country.

It was so real and close that it inspired literally millions of women and girls in America to soar to greater heights, and just as surely weighed them down when that achievement was snatched away.

When I see one prominent man after the other step forward to try and claim the office, I can't help but wonder what good they believe will come from passing over the chance we have in 2020 to set things right again and put women back on track to realizing this ultimate achievement for themselves and for the further progress of the nation.

Is it even a consideration? How do these men feel about this?

I saw Beto and Booker say they'd consider a woman as vice-president. That's really something, isn't it? Such concern for the advancement of women to the WH. So much that they'd sacrifice a little of their success for women's own.

But what would be so terrible about supporting one of the women already declared and running? How absurd to press forward with their own quixotic campaigns, cavalierly pandering to women without a bit of self-awareness that they're looking to steal these women candidate's thunder and angling to delay this important goal, likely for another decade, or more.

I just saw this and... this is depressing.

Link to tweet

Man...

[Bradshaw3]

1. Democrats haven't had a white male as the nominee in 15 years

Yet somehow we HAVE to nominate a woman this year at the top of the ticket because they always have? To repeat, John Kerry in 2004 was the last white male Democratic nominee.

How about we choose the nominee who is the most qualified and most likely to win and not one based on gender?

[WeekiWater]

2. I don't see where the op referenced white men. NT

[bigtree]

3. define 'most qualified'

...in a way that recognizes women may have something different to offer than men which has the potential to inspire more voters to the polls.

[Bradshaw3]

5. Dubious proposition

I use accomplishments, voting history, electability based on facts, experience, character and positions taken over a period of time as my judgments in choosing a candidate. Saying a woman may inspire more voters to the polls is nice, but not really proven and 2020 is definitley NOT a time to wish for results based on ....?

[bigtree]

9. any of the women running have just as much potential electability, or more

...not 'wishing' at all.

I think any of the prominent Dem candidates could beat Trump. I don't think we could invent a more advantageous election for our party.

[Bradshaw3]

14. Saying so doesn't make it a fact

Dems have some advantages, just as the did in 2016. People having beliefs or wishes is fine. I look at past voting patterns, and other facts such as the electroal college and voter suppression will be with us again in 2020 whne taking a nominee into consideration. Saying "I think" is no more fact-based than wishing. Different people have different appeals and different levels of electability. Basing it on solely on gender is a losing proposition.

[athena]

23. Who is basing anything "solely on gender"?

Please show me the posts supporting Condaleeza Rice and Sarah Palin and Ivanka Trump.

Taking into account that a woman at the top of the ticket would wildly excite turnout among liberal women after what we’ve had to put up with since 2016 is no different from taking any other aspect of a candidate’s electability into account.

But instead, we’re all supposed to shut up and pretend we live in a non-sexist world and that a man would represent our concerns just as well as a woman! Why? Because we’re women, and we’re always taken for granted.

[Bradshaw3]

30. Who said anything about taking women for granted?

Or about repub women? Did you even read the OP? Here is the quote:
"I see one prominent man after the other step forward to try and claim the office, I can't help but wonder what good they believe will come from passing over the chance we have in 2020 to set things right again and put women back on track to realizing this ultimate achievement for themselves and for the further progress of the nation."
Sounds to me like males are not supposed to "step forward and claim the office".

Also nothing was said about shutting up and pretending such and such. More straw dogs that aren't relevant. BTW my preferred candidate is female but it's not because of her gender. We need to have a female president but in 2020 we HAVE to get him out of office with the candidate with the best possible chance to win.

[WeekiWater]

4. I have a gender bias in the primaries.

I have stated in this forum on multiple occasions that I have a gender preference. I don't hide from that. I want to vote for a woman and the women running do receive preference on my list. At some point we must consider it absurd that we have not had a women representing us at the top.

I'm also with you about the answer some give about considering a woman as their VP.

The optics of this have stayed with me.

Women cover Susan B. Anthony’s grave with ‘I voted’ stickers as ‘Pantsuit Nation’ votes

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/11/08/women-cover-susan-b-anthonys-grave-with-i-voted-stickers-as-pantsuit-nation-votes/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0e44852215fc

[LongtimeAZDem]

6. Only 34% (corrected) of eligible women voters cast ballots for Secretary Clinton

Last edited Wed Mar 20, 2019, 04:10 PM - Edit history (2)

Concern for the advancement of women should start with that fact.

Edited to add: My apologies, the correct figure is 34%, not 22%. The point stands, however, as that is still only a third of eligible female voters.

[athena]

13. That's because most women are as sexist as most men.

That is no reason to expect that the majority of women will happily go out and campaign for and vote for two white men after what happened in 2016.

And god job, justifying sexism based on the argument that there are sexist women out there. You can justify any kind of discrimination that way. Let’s just propagate sexism instead of working to change it!

[LongtimeAZDem]

17. I didn't justify anything. I pointed out that, when they had the opportunity to vote

for a woman for president, they didn't show up.

And it wasn't just sexism; most of my liberal female friends refused to vote for Clinton, because they were pissed off over the alleged treatment of Sanders. They voted for Stein, even though I practically got down on my knees and begged them to vote for Clinton.

But you deflect however you want.

[Mr Tibbs]

24. I believe that the theory was we would automatically get 50% of the vote

Since women make up 50% of the population. Obviously that calculation did not pan out.

[athena]

25. Your female friends were sexist.

I’m sorry, but there was no other reason for anyone to not vote for HRC in 2016. No one is going to admit, even to themselves, that their reason for “just not liking that woman” is sexism.

And you’re using the internalized sexism of that trodden-upon group to justify continued, institutionalized sexism.

[LongtimeAZDem]

26. whatever

[athena]

27. Very convincing argument.

Enjoy Trump’s second term.

And thanks for dismissing a woman’s perspective and arguments. You, of course, know better. What could I possibly know about sexism that you, as a man, don’t know?

[LongtimeAZDem]

28. It's not an argument; it's a dismissal of your absurd statement

"Enjoy Trump’s second term."? What the actual fuck?

I voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton, former Senator, former Secretary of State, one of, of not the most qualified candidates ever to run for office.

I leave you to wallow in your small-minded bigotry.

[Control-Z]

16. I hadn't heard that figure.

Will you please give us the link to it?

Thanks!

[LongtimeAZDem]

22. My math was wrong; it was 34%, not 22%. The point stands, however

63.3% of eligible female adults went to the polls

Women supported Clinton over Trump by 54% to 42%

54% of 63.3% is 34%

My apologies; I will fix my post above.

[MicaelS]

7. As long as some (not all) Democratic Women think ..

They are "owed" a Woman President, they will continue to be disappointed. One of the reasons HRC lost was that attitude. It pissed a lot of people off. She was seen as "the anointed one", as in "How DARE any one else run against her". YOU are displaying that same attitude in your post.

We saw that in 2008 with the PUMAs. "Party Unity, My Ass!"

Personally, I think it high time we had a woman President, or at the very least Vice-President, that is why I support Kamala Harris. The people will decide on whom they choose as the best candidate. And if Democratic women like yourself cannot organize behind a woman candidate (when you are 51% of the populace), that is on you.

If it were solely my choice I would like a Harris / O'Rourke ticket.

[bigtree]

10. I don't think it's owed

...as much as (I think) it should be an aspiration for anyone running, mouthing concern for the advancement of issues important to women.

For what it was worth, to some of us, we were at the threshhold of an important and overdue recognition for women. If someone thinks that's just some esoteric pursuit to regain that ground that was taken from us, they're free to revert back to advancing a man (electability and all that, hrumph!). Best of luck.

I think the women are stronger, more dynamic choices in this election. I wonder what the men candidates think about that.

[BooScout]

8. The two most qualified candidates are women...

Harris and Warren. I'm good with either of them.

[we can do it]

15. I agree. Either could be my top pick.

[MH1]

11. The Presidency isn't a prize, and it doesn't necessarily go to the most deserving (duh!)

We have a mission to complete successfully.

I only care that the nominee is the most likely to successfully complete it.

It isn't anyone's turn, and someone doesn't get extra points just because their gender or race or sexual orientation has been dissed in the past.

When selecting a candidate to hire for a job, I have the same attitude. But the mission for jobs I've hired for is entirely different. And in that case, I have a good record of hiring African Americans and women. (I don't ask people about sexuality and interviewees usually don't make it obvious, so I have no idea on that one.)

The mission of winning the presidency includes being able to get past the biases of people in swing states. If that means the time isn't right for a woman, so be it.

The Presidency isn't a prize, and it's no one's "turn".

[athena]

18. Yes. It's always a man's turn.

Supporting a woman means you don’t care about qualifications and electability but instead are using affirmative action. But supporting a man never means affirmative action! It always means supporting the man (always, a man) who is the most qualified and electable.

Do you even realize all the sexist assumptions that went into your post? You managed to insult women and all minorities.

According to your argument, the time will never be right for a woman or another minority. And it will always be a white man’s “turn”.

Good luck getting the women of this country excited about campaigning and voting for yet another white-male ticket.

[MH1]

31. You should re-read my post. Or, are you arguing

that a woman can never win? (but damn if she can't, then why would we nominate her?)

All I'm saying is that I want the candidate who is most likely to successfully complete the mission.

YOU seem to be inferring that I mean I won't support a woman in the primary. But that is not what I said.

But one thing's for DAMN sure - I'm not going to let gender stop me one way or the other, from voting for the Democrat in the general election, and working hard to get other people excited to vote for our candidate. Even if it is, gasp, a white male.

[bigtree]

20. no it's not a damn birthday

...but trivializing the hopes and dreams of women, who have NOT seen the past presidencies prioritize issues and concerns important and life affirming to them?

It is a prize, a goalpost. Easy to deny that right now.

It is far past time for the nation to elect a woman. Anyone has the perfect right to stand in front of that ambition and achieve it ahead of women candidates. But it should be with the full understanding and acknowledgement that they are assuming, once again, a role which has been denied women, exclusively.

And let's not start the nonsense women can't compete in this upcoming election as well as men. None of these candidates have proven themselves, yet.

Voting for the presidency isn't like hiring someone to clerk for you or to labor. It's a reflection of who we want to lead our nation. We put those aspirations first, if we have any conviction at all, because we believe those aspirations and values will find as much support as we advocate for.

It's not a job interview, it's an election where we actively work to control the outcome in our favor. For instance, I think it's absurd to view electability of our candidates primarily through the warped mind of a right-wing voter.

If we don't generate enough interest on our side, beyond electability, we're surely going to be at mercy of voters other than the ones in our party who we failed to inspire to the polls.

[dlk]

21. The Presidency Should Represent America

So far, women, the majority, have not been adequately represented. There are many supremely qualified women who never get a shot because of their gender. Don’t kid yourself.

[athena]

12. I agree with you.

It’s a tricky argument to make, and you’re brave for making it. I feel exactly the same way. I am sick and tired of white men running the country. I fear that the Democratic ticket will ultimately have two white men on it. That may make al the men on DU feel very pleased with themselves, but the reality is that it will depress turnout among women.

My three preferred candidates for the presidency are, Warren, Harris, and Booker, in that order. My preference on DU is Harris because I believe she is more electable than Warren, who is wonderful but not big-boned and strong-voiced enough to win in this disgustingly macho country. I would be delighted with Harris-Booker, Warren-Booker, Harris-Inslee, or Warren-Inslee. Unfortunately, because Americans consider two white men perfectly natural but two women or two people of color unacceptable, Harris-Booker and Harris-Warren are out of the question. I wish the men on DU who are supporting a white man would stop for one moment to consider their male privilege and try just for one moment to have some empathy and respect for those different from them.

[dlk]

19. The Fight for Women's Civil Rights is Ongoing

Women may make up the majority of the population. Yes their struggle for equal rights and equal representation continues to be an uphill battle. Considering the myriad ways men in charge have totally screwed up and screwed women’s equality, a woman in the White House is long overdue. A glaring example is the degenerate, corrupt sociopath who is our current president.

[CrispyQ]

29. I will vote for whoever our candidates are, but my enthusiasm & contributions

will be significantly less if there isn't a woman on the ticket.

[bigtree]

32. .

Link to tweet

[Socal31]

33. Gender will not be a deciding factor for me personally.

But the current crop of women who are running makes me wish I had a daughter to share with my pride in being a (D).